NetXMS Support Forum

Quote from: starkiller on April 25, 2017, 06:44:44 AM
Submitted

https://track.radensolutions.com/issue/NX-1229

What good does it do to submit this?
It has not gotten any traction that I can see.

Hi,

as I understood it is misconception, not a bug. When you walk object tree end expand object, you see ALL child objects. Interfaces are child objects of a node, so when you expand a node, you see all interfaces. It is irrelevant if you come to that node via subnet, or container, or template, etc. You always will see all objects below.

Best regards,
Victor

Quote from: Victor Kirhenshtein on August 03, 2017, 10:07:43 AM
Hi,

as I understood it is misconception, not a bug. When you walk object tree end expand object, you see ALL child objects. Interfaces are child objects of a node, so when you expand a node, you see all interfaces. It is irrelevant if you come to that node via subnet, or container, or template, etc. You always will see all objects below.

Best regards,
Victor

So your saying that it is irrelevant that the interface is not configured to have access to that vlan.

expanding the tree via vlan will show the interface since it could be configured to see that vlan, even though its not currently configured for that vlan.

So instead of showing facts, netxms is showing facts and possibilities.

Is there anything in the docs that state that netxms will show the vlan the interface is configured for as well as possible vlans the interface could be configured for?

No other network monitoring system does this that I am aware of.
OpenNMS, PandoraFMS, Zabbix to name a few open source free ones do not do this and neither do ones like Solarwinds or PRTG.

Victor this is very misleading as one expects a network monitoring system to show facts and not possibly configurations.

In any case I am just one user expressing and issue with the on part of the design of netxms which causes confusion compared to other NMS systems and hoping it would recognized as and issue and be fixed by the author.

Quote from: starkiller on August 04, 2017, 05:06:45 AM
In any case I am just one user expressing and issue with the on part of the design of netxms which causes confusion compared to other NMS systems and hoping it would recognized as and issue and be fixed by the author.

I just read through this entire thread.

Actually, you are one user that is fighting the system, instead of trying to understand how it works.

NetXMS make NO assumption, it does NOT show what could be. It shows what is.
You seem to completely misunderstand the concept that one node is one object, and it's linked to (it's bound) to many places around the system.

It's consistency.

The way you are proposing would be way too confusing to existing and new users.
One object, with the same Object ID would show different children (be that interfaces, or VPN connectors, or wireless interfaces, etc.) across different parts of the system.

I REALLY suggest trying to see how the system works and why it works that way instead of arguing why the way that works for thousands of NetXMS users is wrong.

You make 0 attempts to ask questions, to see why the system behaves how it does, or to understand NetXMS philosophy.
So you will have to accept my post doing the same.

Quote from: tomaskir on August 04, 2017, 11:32:21 AM
I just read through this entire thread.

Actually, you are one user that is fighting the system, instead of trying to understand how it works.

Everyone sees it differently.

Quote from: tomaskir on August 04, 2017, 11:32:21 AM
NetXMS make NO assumption, it does NOT show what could be. It shows what is.
You seem to completely misunderstand the concept that one node is one object, and it's linked to (it's bound) to many places around the system.

It's consistency.

I can only restate what the screenshots and config snippet show which is that the screen shots show interfaces as a child of a vlan/subnet that those interfaces are not part of and do not pass traffic for. The 2 objects should not be associated together as they have no association which should warrant such a graphical representation.

Quote from: tomaskir on August 04, 2017, 11:32:21 AM
The way you are proposing would be way too confusing to existing and new users.
One object, with the same Object ID would show different children (be that interfaces, or VPN connectors, or wireless interfaces, etc.) across different parts of the system.

I REALLY suggest trying to see how the system works and why it works that way instead of arguing why the way that works for thousands of NetXMS users is wrong.

I would hope that showing what is there vs showing what isn't there as being there is not confusing for users.

Interfaces are NOT descendants of a subnet - they are descendants of a node. Node can be in multiple subnets.

Best regards,
Victor

Quote from: Victor Kirhenshtein on August 11, 2017, 05:05:49 PM
Interfaces are NOT descendants of a subnet - they are descendants of a node. Node can be in multiple subnets.

Best regards,
Victor

I understand a node can be in multiple subnets. When you expand the subnet and it shows the interfaces of that node who are not configured for that subnet in that subnet is what I am referring to.

I have attached another screenshot. The Interfaces with the red circle around them are configured to be in the subnet with the red circle around them. The Interfaces with the Yellow Highlight are configured to be in the subnet with the yellow highlight.

The node is the ge0router, unless I am mistaken about what a node is.

I wanted to make it as clear as possible what I am describing.

Its a bug to me, but a work as designed to you Victor and a few others that use netxms.

I am fine with that as I am not using it in production because of this issue as I do not have time to explain why its visually misrepresented to those who have compared this to other systems out there. Thanks for taking the time to look at it Victor.